Re: To UV or not
Re: To UV or not
- Subject: Re: To UV or not
- From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:11:56 +1000
Roger Breton wrote:
And that's the hypothesis I was toying with, to have the press sheets
measured with the UV filter ON. But that's 56 sheets to measure, you know. I
was trying to avoid that pain.
Of course you can manipulate the result to some extent,
by choosing whether to measure with or without the
UV filter on the soure and target measurements independently.
There are four combinations, only two of which are
consistent, and the other two will nudge your result one way
or the other, depending on the relative FWA content of the two
papers, and the relative UV output of the instrument vs. the
viewing environment.
As a rule, I always try to measure press and proof using the same
instrument. But, you know, I have created a number of press profiles out of
Spectroscan measurements. When I have to create the proofer profile at some
client site to simulate those press profiles, it is more convenient to carry
a DTP70 around than a Spectroscan table. Yes, I have to live with the
inherent calibration differences between GMB and X-Rite instruments :(
One major source of discrepancy I found between the Spectroscan and the DTP41
was that the white backings were not the same. This will have an effect,
unless your paper is particularly thick.
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden